LYTTELTON.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8480, 11 May 1893, Page 3

LYTTELTON.

Wednesday, May 10. (Before R. Beet ham, Ksq., R.M.) Maintenance.—Robert Charles Seymour was- charged with failing to obey an order made by the Court for him to pay 10a pur week towards the support of his wife, Kate Maria Seymour. Mr Xalder appeared for plaintiff. Defendant said lie was not in a position to pay 10s per week, but was propared to pay a smaller amouiu. After hearing the evidence of defendant ho ivaa ordure.t to pay the amount of arrears, £4, in forty-eight hours, or go to gaol for two months.

Allkukd Assault.—Edward F. Steuson and Henry L. Patterson, head porter and porter respectively at the Railway Station, JLytteltou, were charged on the information ot John Bethkc, licensed porter, Lyttulton, with assaulting him ou May 6th. Mr Donuelly appeared for plain titf. The evidence of complainant was to the effect that oil May sth he took the luggage of a passenger to the Railway Station, and was ordered by Stinson to deposit it in a certaiu spot. Plaintiff followed the pueseuger on to the platform to obtain paynieut for the porterage. Stetuou ordered him off", aud witness said he would go as soon aa he got his money. Steuson then caught hold of him by the throat, and called Patterson to help him, and between the two they dragged him into the parcels office, where Patterson knelt on his chest. They kept him there for a time, and then released him. A. Koskella aud W. J. Ealam, two news paper runners, deposed to seeing defendant Stenson catch hold of Bethke by the throat, throw him down, and call Patterson to his assistance, aud between them they dragged him into the parcels office. They released him soon afterwards. Joseph Wales, carrier, said he saw the scuffle ou the platform, and went over to look, when he saw that Stenson and Patterson had got Bethke by the arm and shoulder, and were taking him into the parcels office. He was re leased soon after wards. The evidence of defendant Steneoii was to the . effect that he had occasion to order Bethkevoflr the platformy&iwl he refused to So. Took hold of him to put him off, when iethke caught hold of witness by the waistcoat and necktie. Witness called the assistance of Patterson, and they took hitn into the parcels office, where they kept him while witness went to get a policeman. No policeman was about, so* they released him. Witness read over from the railway regulations the. clause under which he held a railway official was authorised to caution any trespasser to leave, and then, if he refused to go, to detain him till the assistance of the police could be obtained. Plaintiff had no right ■to deposit luggage upon the main platform, as there was a place specially set apart for it, Irom whence it was taken charge of by the < porters. After putting the luggage there he was still further breaking the rules by loitering about the platform aud refusing to leave when told to. To Mr Donnelly—There was nothing topreventapersoncatryingaperson's luggage on to the platform, but the porter must leave the station at once and not loiter about the platform. Henry L. Patterson, the other defendant, gave similar evidence. He was called by Stciisou to help remove Bethke, who refuse I to leave the platform until he had got his money. They took him by the arms aud shoulder aud walked him off to the' parcels olfice while a policeman was called. Bethke seized !S ten sou by lira waistcoat and necktie and damuged his clothes. They did not kneel on his chest. James Ashley, station master at Lyttulton, said there were no regulations applying to porters. Lyltoltou was about tiie only station where there were tow;, porters, and the men had a permit fiem the Railway Commissioners, which brougut them under the same regulations a* can ions. The plaintiff had tipplied to the Commissioners for a permit, but it had not been granted. (Jiause 23 of the railway regulations allowed anyone to ca.i ty passengers' luggage on to the platform if authoiised by ihe passenger to da so. They must not, however, loiter about the platform and premises aa was mentioned in clause 7, and if they did so they Locarno trespassers and conld be dealt with accordingly. The town porters did not lea re the luqgugo upon the main platform, but at a place set apart for the- purpose, uud thoy did not part with it till they had got their money. Plaiutiif bei §j seen loitering about the platform wotilii b=s considered aa being there for the purpose of soliciting hire. After going into tlie matter carefully hie Worship said .it was evi'ienf. that the working of the station must be curried out with order, and a great deal of responsibility rested upon the station master. It was very evideut the tulc at Lyttclton was that the town porters did not go upon the station, but submitted to the rules made for the working of tho station. Uβ did not think any damage had been done by tho assault, and plaintiff should have left vrlien cold to. The case was dismisse 1.

Neglected Children. — John T. W. Bethke, aged eleven years and five months, Robert H. Bethke, tea years and two months, Elizabeth Bethke, eight years and nine months, David Bethke, four years and eleven mouths, and George Bctlike, two years and eleven months, were charged With being found wauderimf in Ox lord street, Lyttelton, not having any home or any visible means of support. The charge was laid under the Industrial Schools Act. The evidence of Sergeaut O'Alalley was to the effect that on Tuesday the bailiff obtained possession of a tenement where the family were living, putting all their goods out into the street. About 7 p.m. the police found the children wandering about in the street with no place to go to. Under the circumstances the police had no option but to put the whole family in the lock-tip for the night. No one would rent them a house as they could never get any rent,, and it coat them £3 or £4 to get them out. The Charitable Aid Board had guaranteed to pay 4a per week rent. The parents of the children were in Court, and the father said he was not able to pay the rent of a house. He had bad a deaf of sickness, and was not able to do hard work, but would do his best to keep 'the children. Mr C. Bo we,' who was in Court, said he would let the family a house if the Charitable Aid Board would guarantee the rent for sixmontbs. His Worship said the offer in Court made by the Charitable Aid Board specified no particular time. The police were told to endeavour to obtain for the Board a guarantee for six months, his Worship being unwilling to send the children to Burnham.

Civil, Cases.—Nalder v Brodie, £2 7s lOd. Judgment went by default*